Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it’s too short. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2,6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho ( 2022/0022500) in view of Ahnan-Winarno et al “ Tempeh: A semicentennial review on its health benefits, fermentation, safety, processing, sustainability and affordability”.
For claims 1,7,9, 12 Cho discloses a method for producing tempeh and tempeh obtained from the method. The method comprises the steps of inoculating and incubating Rhizopus strain into steamed beans and fermenting the steam beans that are inoculated with the fungus. Cho discloses in the background section that the beans are peeled. Cho discloses the tempeh starter strain is inoculated in an amount of .1-5% based on total weight of steamed beans. The fermentation is performed at temperature 10-50 degrees C. ( see paragraphs 0003,0011,0058)
For claim 11, Cho discloses soybean. ( see paragraph 0058)
For claims 14,16 Cho discloses a method for producing aged tempeh and aged tempeh obtained therefrom. The method comprises the steps of preparing the tempeh, preparing a mixture comprising the tempeh and one or more of salt and brine and aging the mixture. ( see paragraphs 0014-0018 and the examples)
For claim 17, Cho discloses a sauce comprising the aged tempeh. ( see paragraph 0022)
Cho discloses the beans are peeled but does not specifically disclose steaming the peeled beans as in claim 1, dry peeling as in claim 2, adding acid as in claim 6, the shape dimension as in claim 8, the humidity as in claim 10, a sauce comprising the tempeh as in claim 13 and stirring as in claim 15.
Ahnan-Winarno teaches that in some production method, peeling of the beans is conducted by dry dehulling with machine. Ahnan-Winarno also discloses that acidification improves the quality of tempeh produced as well as inhibiting the growth of unwanted microorganisms. Ahnan-Winarno discloses that fermentation requires an optimum level of approximately 62% humidity. ( see page 1721)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dry peel the beans as taught in Ahnan-Winarno in the Cho process as an obvious matter of using a known alternative technique. One skilled in the art would also have been motivated to do dry peeling to save water that is needed to soak the bean to facilitate peeling. Ahnan-Winarno teaches acidification improves the quality of tempeh and inhibit growth of unwanted microorganisms. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add acid to the steamed beans to obtain the benefits when the beans are not soaked in acidified water. Tempeh is made to look like tofu. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to mold the tempeh to have shape like tofu. The dimension made would have been an obvious matter of choice depending on the size desired. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to follow the guideline of Ahnan-Winarno for the humidity and optimized through routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to use the tempeh in a sauce to obtain different flavor and taste. It would have been obvious to stir the mixture during aging to keep uniformity in the mixture. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Ahnan-Winarno et al as applied to claims 1-2,6-17 above, and further in view of Kusumah et al “ Promotion of Fungal Growth, Antibacterial and Antioxidative Activities in Tempe Produced with Soybeans Thermally Treated Using Steam Pressure.
Cho does not disclose the steam parameters as in claims 3-5.
Kusumah et al teaches steaming the beans to make tempeh. The steaming is done under a pressure of .043-.045 MPa at 110 degrees C, .106-.108 MPa at 121 degrees C and .178-180MPa at 130 degrees C . ( see page 396, under the heading “ materials and methods)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the guideline of Kusumah for the steaming of the beans in the Cho process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
July 29, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights